Joseph's apparent contradiction.

[Nathair/|\]

... it's been over a year since I visited this board. After reading Pahoran's posts ... I can now go another year or two without coming back again.

I am sure he will appreciate that you found his wisdom so enlightening that it will take you a year or two to process and assimilate it.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Really, why is that?

I think he did a fine job of defending against mis-representation and false hoods.

So now people are coming in to vote on the winner? thews destroyed pahoran. I have read the exchange a couple of times. I suppose this is the point where someone will come in and rip on me.

[Pahoran]

So now people are coming in to vote on the winner? thews destroyed pahoran. I have read the exchange a couple of times. I suppose this is the point where someone will come in and rip on me.

If you insist....

But first, just to satisfy my curiosity: how exactly did Thews "destroy" me? By fabricating "denials" I never denied, by misrepresenting my position, or by misrepresenting the facts of the case?

And are you sure you have read the same exchange everyone else has?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

That's false, as you evidently intended. I have not described that account as hearsay, as you know.

You have not described that account at all, as you intentionally continue to ignore the 1835 published history that states nothing about Joseph Smith seeing God and Jesus Christ. The

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So now people are coming in to vote on the winner? thews destroyed pahoran. I have read the exchange a couple of times.

We are? Are you sure you are reading the same thread as me? How did Thews destroy Pahoran? As I see it Thews used a slew of mis-representation and flat out fabrications. What ever floats your boat.

So you think Thews destroyed Pahoran with such gems as this

E) Joseph Smith often claimed treasures were moved by treasure gurdians.

I suppose this is the point where someone will come in and rip on me.

And you suppose wrong.

[Lloyd Dobler]

We are? Are you sure you are reading the same thread as me? How did Thews destroy Pahoran? As I see it Thews used a slew of mis-representation and flat out fabrications. What ever floats your boat.

So you think Thews destroyed Pahoran with such gems as this

And you suppose wrong.

Yeah. I am wrong about getting ripped on. And that is nice. I am sure I will be wrong again. However, when it comes to this thread. Thews is right. This thread is freaking awesome! Not only does Thews throw out the evidence but then points out the strategy Pahorah uses to dodge it. If Pahoran would atually acknowledge the evidence and the common sense conclusions from them and then put forth his argument, he would sound so much better. This is like Tyson vs. Leon Spinks. I am just going to pop some more popcorn and keep reading.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah. I am wrong about getting ripped on. And that is nice. I am sure I will be wrong again. However, when it comes to this thread. Thews is right. This thread is freaking awesome! Not only does Thews throw out the evidence but then points out the strategy Pahorah uses to dodge it. If Pahoran would atually acknowledge the evidence and the common sense conclusions from them and then put forth his argument, he would sound so much better. This is like Tyson vs. Leon Spinks. I am just going to pop some more popcorn and keep reading.

You mean the hearsay reports of 2nd hand accounts? That counts as primary evidence that JS said

E) Joseph Smith often claimed treasures were moved by treasure gurdians.

If JS really often claimed it, then it should be easy for you or Thews to show that he did.

Do you or thews know what hearsay is? It is he said she said he said. And that is exactly what we have here.

That is we have a fellow that claimed to hear another fellow claim that JS said such and such. That is not really taht convincing. Why do you think it carries any weight?

Do you always go about arguments with people you know in a similar fashion?

[Vance]

Not only does Thews throw out the evidence hearsay . . .

There, fixed it for you.

Do you know what hearsay is?

Apparently you think is carries more weight than it does.

I am just going to pop some more popcorn and keep reading.

Me too.

It is very entertaining to watch Pahoran destroy Thews pathetic arguments.

[Lloyd Dobler]

You mean the hearsay reports of 2nd hand accounts? That counts as primary evidence that JS said

If JS really often claimed it, then it should be easy for you or Thews to show that he did.

Do you or thews know what hearsay is? It is he said she said he said. And that is exactly what we have here.

That is we have a fellow that claimed to hear another fellow claim that JS said such and such. That is not really taht convincing. Why do you think it carries any weight?

Do you always go about arguments with people you know in a similar fashion?

I am not taking the bait on this thread. Like I said, I am just eating popcorn.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am not taking the bait on this thread. Like I said, I am just eating popcorn.

The bait?

What ever, I hope you do enjoy the popcorn.

[Vance]

[thews]

Do you know what hearsay is?

What part of an 1835 written account by Joseph Smtih himself along with Oliver Cowdrey where angels are said to have appeared equated to "hearsay"? Do you deny this 1835 written account that only claims angels appeared to Joseph Smith in the first vision? This is the topic of the OP, and while treasure guardians first appearing as angels (Moroni specifically) is relevant, surly you can't just discount this written history... can you?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=600

From the Maxwell Institute on the subject...

Smith's apostles used this same terminology. For example, on 27 December 1841, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles with Joseph Smith in the Prophet's home. "I had the privilege," Woodruff wrote, "of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM."19 We know that Joseph had returned the spectacles to the angel Moroni over a decade earlier. Brigham Young's journal account of the same meeting clarifies that Woodruff was writing about one of Joseph's seer stones: "I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph's. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects . . . [and] he showed us his seer stone."20 The terms key and keys

[Vance]

What part of an 1835 written account by Joseph Smtih himself along with Oliver Cowdrey where angels are said to have appeared equated to "hearsay"?

Who has claimed THAT account is hearsay? Are you delusional or unstable?

Do you deny this 1835 written account that only claims angels appeared to Joseph Smith in the first vision?

Does "only claims angels" the same as "claims only angels"?

Just checking on your reading comprehension.

This is the topic of the OP, and while treasure guardians first appearing as angels (Moroni specifically) is relevant, surly you can't just discount this written history... can you?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=600

From the Maxwell Institute on the subject...

And the conclusion is:

Returning to the historical record, we can summarize the documentary evidence: (1) All firsthand accounts agree on Moroni's identity as an angel. (2) The earliest accounts say that Moroni is an angel. (3) A contextual consideration indicates that Moroni made a better angel than a treasure guardian. Moreover, a closer look at what the treasure-guardian sources actually say clearly demonstrates that their source is not Joseph Smith but rather run-of-the-mill treasure-lore superimposed upon his story. In this case, it is not difficult to discern the direction in which Moroni's metamorphosis occurred. In conclusion, folklore analysis and the ground rules of history support the thesis that Joseph Smith's encounters with Moroni are best understood as the visits of a heavenly messenger to a prayerful seeker.

The real story that emerges from these documents is not that Joseph Smith transformed a treasure guardian into an angel but rather that Moroni has been transformed from an angel into a treasure guardian by a set of early critics and those historians who have relied on them. Although the historical sources that cast Moroni as a treasure guardian tell us something about Joseph's initial understanding of his experiences, they tell us more about the original need of his community and the current need of his critics to provide an alternative explanation for his encounters with Moroni.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does "only claims angels" the same as "claims only angels"?

Just checking on your reading comprehension.

An important distinction, and one that illustrates how antagonists fail to draw a distinction between differing accounts and conflicting accounts.

[thews]

An important distinction, and one that illustrates how antagonists fail to draw a distinction between differing accounts and conflicting accounts.

What's your point? Either differing or conflicting, seeing Jesus Christ and God at the same time was not mentioned in the 1835 "first vision" account by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey. Seeing an angel/s was recorded, and there is evidence the angel evolved from a treasure guardian. You can invent a conspiracy theory and attempt to discount what can or can't be "proven" WRT Thompson's testimony at the trial of Joseph Smith, but you cannot discount that Jesus Christ and God were not mentioned in the 1835 account of the first vision... can you?

[thews]

Who has claimed THAT account is hearsay? Are you delusional or unstable?

Neither... I just acknowledge the truth.

Does "only claims angels" the same as "claims only angels"?

Let me break it down for you... what is not mentioned is seeing Jesus Christ and God, but ONLY angels.

Just checking on your reading comprehension.

Who is having a hard time here? Are you claiming Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey claimed, in the 1835 history of the church, that Joseph Smith saw Jesus Christ and God?

And the conclusion is:

Returning to the historical record, we can summarize the documentary evidence: (1) All firsthand accounts agree on Moroni's identity as an angel. (2) The earliest accounts say that Moroni is an angel. (3) A contextual consideration indicates that Moroni made a better angel than a treasure guardian. Moreover, a closer look at what the treasure-guardian sources actually say clearly demonstrates that their source is not Joseph Smith but rather run-of-the-mill treasure-lore superimposed upon his story. In this case, it is not difficult to discern the direction in which Moroni's metamorphosis occurred. In conclusion, folklore analysis and the ground rules of history support the thesis that Joseph Smith's encounters with Moroni are best understood as the visits of a heavenly messenger to a prayerful seeker.

The real story that emerges from these documents is not that Joseph Smith transformed a treasure guardian into an angel but rather that Moroni has been transformed from an angel into a treasure guardian by a set of early critics and those historians who have relied on them. Although the historical sources that cast Moroni as a treasure guardian tell us something about Joseph's initial understanding of his experiences, they tell us more about the original need of his community and the current need of his critics to provide an alternative explanation for his encounters with Moroni.

Your opinion about the treasure guardian, and it doesn't include the contradiction in that Joseph Smith didn't record seeing Jesus Christ and God in the 1835 account. By the way... what would you expect a money-digger to claim was guaring a treasure?

[Scott Lloyd]

What's your point? Either differing or conflicting, seeing Jesus Christ and God at the same time was not mentioned in the 1835 "first vision" account by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey. Seeing an angel/s was recorded, and there is evidence the angel evolved from a treasure guardian. You can invent a conspiracy theory and attempt to discount what can or can't be "proven" WRT Thompson's testimony at the trial of Joseph Smith, but you cannot discount that Jesus Christ and God were not mentioned in the 1835 account of the first vision... can you?

Acknowledging it as fact is one thing; being bothered by it is quite another. Nobody has yet given a persuasive reason why I should be.

A personal visitation from the Father and the Son is a sacred thing, about as sacred as it gets. Being guarded and circumspect about where, when, how and to whom one relates such a sublime experience is not surprising or troublesome to me in the least.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your opinion about the treasure guardian, and it doesn't include the contradiction in that Joseph Smith didn't record seeing Jesus Christ and God in the 1835 account.

How is that a contradiction? Not mentioning it does not equate to denying it.

Maybe at some point we will be able to help you to understand the meaning of contradiction.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your opinion about the treasure guardian,

Not just his opinion. The reasoned conclusion from the author of an article you yourself presented.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your opinion about the treasure guardian, and it doesn't include the contradiction in that Joseph Smith didn't record seeing Jesus Christ and God in the 1835 account. By the way... what would you expect a money-digger to claim was guaring a treasure?

His opinion? Really? I think it is you giving your opinion. The facts don't match up with Mormoni was ever thought off as a treasure gaurdian. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is by hearsay reports that you ahve produced. There are no first hand or primary accounts that JS himself wrote that he thought that.

Did JS ever claim that there was someone gaurding a treasure. I mean something more than the hearsay gossip reports you have produced.

Another term for hearsay is gossip.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How is that a contradiction? Not mentioning it does not equate to denying it.

Maybe at some point we will be able to help you to understand the meaning of contradiction.

I think Thews needs to go back to the Jupiter Tailsman thread. This is a waste.

[Vance]

Neither... I just acknowledge the truth.

Delusional then.

Let me break it down for you... what is not mentioned is seeing Jesus Christ and God, but ONLY angels.

So? When you tell a personal experience do you ALWAYS tell EVERY detail to ALL audiences and bore them to death or do you customize based on the situation?

Who is having a hard time here?

OBVIOUSLY it is you.

Are you claiming Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey claimed, in the 1835 history of the church, that Joseph Smith saw Jesus Christ and God?

Are you claiming Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey claimed, in the 1835 history of the church, that Joseph Smith DID NOT see Jesus Christ and God?

Absence of mention isn't mention of absence.

Your opinion about the treasure guardian, . . .

I didn't give my opinion but the conclusion of the article that you sourced. Perhaps if you had actually read the entire article you might have recognized it.

. . . and it doesn't include the contradiction in that Joseph Smith didn't record seeing

Jesus Christ and God in the 1835 account.

There isn't a contradiction. When something isn't mentioned in one account and is in another doesn't mean that a contradiction must exist. I hope that logic isn't beyond your comprehension.

By the way... what would you expect a money-digger to claim was guaring a treasure?

????

[Scott Lloyd]

A question for all the Joseph Smith detractors on this thread (you know who you are) and such detractors anywhere:

Does not mentioning something equate to contradicting it?

Simple question. Ought to be fairly easy to answer.

(I posed the same question on a related thread.)

[mapman]

By the way... what would you expect a money-digger to claim was guar[d]ing a treasure?

Probably a white salamander.

I quote from FAIRwiki:

"Claims that Joseph "retrofitted" his visions with religious trappings after the fact often beg the question, and ignore crucial evidence. In fact, the earliest accounts treat the matter as religious; this is true even of skeptical newspaper reports, as well as a Smith family letter which shows that Joseph or his father considered Moroni "the Angel of the Lord" as early as 1828.[11]

Joseph and those around him may have also seen some aspects of Moroni in a "treasure guardian" role (and he certainly did guard something of both material and spiritual value

[Lloyd Dobler]

Acknowledging it as fact is one thing; being bothered by it is quite another. Nobody has yet given a persuasive reason why I should be.

A personal visitation from the Father and the Son is a sacred thing, about as sacred as it gets. Being guarded and circumspect about where, when, how and to whom one relates such a sublime experience is not surprising or troublesome to me in the least.

Respectfully, why does this not bother you? There was a time when I wished it did not bother me but it did. The first hand account in the 1835 version where HF and Jesus are not mentioned troubles me because:

JS and OC are working on it together and there is no good reason not to make the doctrine of God and Jesus being two separate physical beings clear.

So as a prophet restoring lost truths, I would expect it to be very clear. For me there are three choices:

1. JS saw HF and JC but HF told JS to not reveal this doctrine just yet

2. JS saw HF and JC but JS and OC used angels anyway knowing that everybody would understand what they meant. (yes, i did read this book on the use of the term angels throught religious history a while ago)

3. JS did not see HF and JC but instead had a spiritual experience that evolved over time. (from my reading this made the most sense)

It is entirely reasonable to come to conclusion #3. If you don't have to believe the church is true and work backward, then I would think this is where the evidence would lead someone.